Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian style shoe


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep and cleanup per discussion below. There does not seem to be a consensus within this debate to merge the article, but that avenue can be pursued through the normal methods. Non-admin close. -- jonny - m t  07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Change result to keep (in the sense of do not delete). "Consensus" of cleanup is hypothetical.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Venetian style shoe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No references, other than dictionaries. (As an aside, those should not be in the "references" section, even if they were references.) No sources. No articles about the subject. Nothing. Perhaps it should be transwikied to Wiktionary, but I don't know if non-notable phrases are wanted there, either. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep although I'm not sure about the wonky name; I just know them as Venetian loafers. The bit about the shape imitating a Venetian bark is OK, but the etymology section is ridiculous. What we need is sources discussing when the shoe became popular and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm a little biassed here since I did start the article. However, I am getting there, slowly but surely. Thank you for the advice about finding articles. Just in case I think I should point out that there are references on the [talk page which need exploration. Perhaps at worst this should be merged into [[loafer]]. --CyclePat (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adequately demonstrates the existence of this shoe style. On the other hand, some of the etymological data about the origin of the name of Venice probably belongs elsewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are still no references in the article. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that some nominators like to insist on them, but the fact is that cleanup is a valid destination per WP:AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Change delete to merge to loafer. It may deserve a couple of sentences there, but there's nothing here which suggests that the name is notable, (which might justify a history of word usage section), or that it's distinguishable from a non-penny loafer.  Suggest a speedy keep, so the merge tags can be properly suggested.  (As nominator, I don't want to close the nomination myself.)  Sorry about tying up resources with the delete vote, when the choice of merge target is obvious if the term is used in any source.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As you are the nominator, be careful not to look like you're voting twice. --Oakshade (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Very common apparel sytle that's of encyclopedic and historic value (note the large amount of dictionary refs). Throwing out this article because we don't have listed a New York Times reference about it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  I never subscribed to the "We must kill this article in order to save it" mentality.  --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.